First english paper due, I havent written shit since highschool...we had to choose our own topics and the only thing i felt passionate about was art, so here is the result. anyone critique in regards to grammar or structure would be helpful...it's supposed to have like a topic sentence, clarifying sentences and all this shit that i don't know what it means.
"
I live for art, from the cryptic meaning in some elaborate painting, to placement of typography in an advertisement, or even the colors vandalized on the brick wall by your house. Its interpretation varies, and I notice its label being applied to increasingly vulgar atrocities. Its purity is slowly being drawn into a void created by minds of the perverse.
Art in my personal definition is an expression of an individual, however that it may be portrayed. Being as each peace is derived from an interminably expanding source (creative mind), the possibilities are eternal. To me art acts as an expressive tool, perceptions will remain ambiguous, some even skeptical…but to the person the piece originates from, it just may act as a blueprint to their entire soul. Do I believe there is a line? Of course, some people are unable to discern between art and the by-product of misinterpreted emotional expression. Carving a heart into your chest as you exclaim its physically expressive euphemism to love remains in my opinion sadistic. Painting a dot and advocating its relativity to solace isn’t art. The semantics of art are essentially indefinable, it will never be circumscribed or bound in meaning. As its evolution continues societies conceptions will either strengthen it’s essential ‘meaning’, or it may enervate its significance altogether.
"
"
I live for art, from the cryptic meaning in some elaborate painting, to placement of typography in an advertisement, or even the colors vandalized on the brick wall by your house. Its interpretation varies, and I notice its label being applied to increasingly vulgar atrocities. Its purity is slowly being drawn into a void created by minds of the perverse.
Art in my personal definition is an expression of an individual, however that it may be portrayed. Being as each peace is derived from an interminably expanding source (creative mind), the possibilities are eternal. To me art acts as an expressive tool, perceptions will remain ambiguous, some even skeptical…but to the person the piece originates from, it just may act as a blueprint to their entire soul. Do I believe there is a line? Of course, some people are unable to discern between art and the by-product of misinterpreted emotional expression. Carving a heart into your chest as you exclaim its physically expressive euphemism to love remains in my opinion sadistic. Painting a dot and advocating its relativity to solace isn’t art. The semantics of art are essentially indefinable, it will never be circumscribed or bound in meaning. As its evolution continues societies conceptions will either strengthen it’s essential ‘meaning’, or it may enervate its significance altogether.
"
Comment